The article asks whether disasters that destroy life but leave the material infrastructure relatively intact tend to prompt communal coping focussing on loss, while disasters that destroy significant material infrastructure tend to prompt coping through restoration / re-building. After comparing memorials to New Zealand’s Christchurch earthquake and Pike River mine disasters, we outline circumstances in which collective restorative endeavour may be grassroots, organised from above, or manipulated, along with limits to effective restoration. We conclude that bereavement literature may need to take restoration more seriously, while disaster literature may need to take loss more seriously.
War and natural disasters share many features including great loss of life, traumatised populations and haunting memories. The Christchurch earthquakes were the third most costly event of 2011 with total costs of up to $NZ30 billion. Many homes, communities, families and an established way of life have gone for ever. The paper comes from the Women’s Voices project that documents women’s narratives of earthquake trauma and loss and examines their profiles of emotional expression associated with coping. For these women in Christchurch, solace is not about talking experiences of suffering but by doing practical things that inform and are shaped by existing personal narratives. As they relayed this common arc, they also entered into national (and gendered) narrative themes of being practical, stoic, independent and resourceful in the face of tragedy and loss and so embody communal aspects of coping with loss and grief particular to the New Zealand even ‘the South Island settler’ identity narrative. These narratives suggest it useful to rethink key concepts that inform our understanding of coping with disaster and loss.
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery.
Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
